My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-25-86 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
06-25-86 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:26:17 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:51:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~zNUr~s <br />City Council <br />June 25, 19H6 <br />Gardner <br />3ros. <br />Construction <br />(Cont.) <br />Fahey suggested that the Engineer look into the feasibility of <br />bringing ses~er and water to the area and that action be tab7ed <br />on the conditional use perniit until this issue is resolved. <br />Scalze felt that a determination on the 5ac!~ property edould have <br />to be nade before the front building could proceed. Scalze felt <br />that a public street would have to service the back property. <br />Fa'ney evas concerned apoiat the type of devel opment proposed for <br />the back. <br />Gardner expla~ned that they would he block buildings that would <br />be very clean v~ith no outside litter. 6ardner explained that <br />they had to use the property to the greatest densit,y they could <br />because so much of the propert.y ~ras unuseab1e. <br />Fahey sugyested that not so high a concentration of buitdings in <br />the back would be more appro~riate. Gardner replied that this v~as <br />a possibility. <br />Fahey sug~ested that o~hile the Enqineer determines the feasibi7ity of <br />brinc~ing sewer and water to the site, the Planner should review <br />the proposal for the back property. <br />Pat Frattalone questioned the ability of T~1r. Gardner to develop <br />anything in the area of the po~ver lines. <br />Gardner stated that they would provide a letter froin tdSP regarding <br />their proposal. <br />Nardini stated that she ~~das not interested in the building going <br />up ~~rithout a sprinkler system, so she felt the ~ahole development <br />svas contingent on getting ~vatermain to the site. <br />t-1r. Heinel also questioned the ability of Gardner to develop <br />in the area of the pouver lines. <br />Gardner explained that they would not put any buildings under the <br />lines, but aiould like a hiqher density for the property not under <br />the lines. <br />Scalze sugc~ested that the Planner review the proposal after the <br />City obtains the feasibility report from the Gngineer. <br />Mr. ~'ahey introduced the fo1loaaing resolution and movec! its adopLion: <br />R~SOLU7ION ~10. &6-6-264 - 7Flf;LING ACTION ON <br />TFIE ~ARD~IER I3ROS. REQUFST FOR A CONDITIONAL <br />US@ PERt+IIT FOR RET/1I1. SALFS 11P1D OUTDOOR STORAGE <br />PFNDI~dG A RfPOf2T FRQP<t TIiF CITY ENGIPlEER Oil TFIE <br />FEASIf3ILITY OF BRINGIPIG ~dA7GR FlN~ SEblER TO THE <br />SITE LOCATED ON CEMTERVILLE ROAD <br />Page -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.